Paul Anderson wrote:
I think I need to respond to Luke again because the approach he is
advocating is doing a great disservice to those many people who are
trying to improve the practical management of their installations. I'll
try not to go on at great length, because the background to many
Luke == Luke Kanies [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Luke The problem is that there appears to be a split whether we
Luke want it or not. The last few workshops have been very
Luke frustrating for me, because they haven't really even tried to
Luke address how a sysadmin would take advantage of
Luke == Luke Kanies [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Luke If you integrate it with the configuration generator, then
Luke you've got to have a tight semantic bond between the validator
Luke and the generator (i.e., it's not enough that the box be a
Luke mail server, it must specifically listen
Narayan Desai wrote:
Luke == Luke Kanies [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Luke The problem is that there appears to be a split whether we
Luke want it or not. The last few workshops have been very
Luke frustrating for me, because they haven't really even tried to
Luke address how a sysadmin
Alva Couch wrote:
Luke Kanies wrote:
Yes, you could specifically add this functionality to a given tool,
but could you create it as a generic component that could be added to
any tool? Could you see a single validator that could work with
Puppet, cfengine, and BCFG2?
You assume that it
Thomas Delaet wrote:
I couldn't agree more. However, another (more lightweight) approach to
getting more data is to get more validation tools in production
environments. They are less intrusive and the languages these tools
use can be seen as a set of constraints on the domain model of
Again, I agree no one cares about the abstraction layer, but I am
flabbergasted that this is the case. I assume no one cared about
portable languages when C and libC were developed either; I know I don't
have the smarts of Kernighan et al, but I'll keep pushing until I fail
or someone
Brandon == Brandon S Allbery KF8NH [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brandon Luke recently mentioned a presentation by Tom Limoncelli
Brandon about why he doesn't do automated configuration management;
Brandon does anyone have a pointer to this, or a summary or etc.?
Brandon I'm still coming up
